Dr. Nat O'Connor:

Stepping backwards and looking at the welfare system as a whole, the key word is “benchmark”. What are we benchmarking our welfare rates against? There are a couple of contenders. There is the MESL, which is published by the Vincentian research group under the SVP. We currently look at it but we have a situation where somebody can be below that minimum threshold of being able to afford the basics of life – it is all itemised item by item by the Vincentians – yet their welfare is cut off before they even reach that threshold. That is an example of one benchmark we could integrate more into the welfare system to make sure that nobody below that threshold is denied assistance. The other way of benchmarking is against total average earnings. There is a pledge that the contributory State pension would be 34% of total earnings. The poverty line is 60% of median earnings, so it is not quite the same. These are key benchmarks. We can use them as an holistic framework where people are being given supplements to get them up to that level rather than being denied the extra supplement because they do not pass this or that means test and they keep falling below that threshold. There is some key logic is focusing on those benchmarks.

Regarding choices, people might have to choose between the increase for qualified adult to their partner’s – usually their husband’s – State pension or the non-contributory pension. As we set out in our submission, the means tests and other eligibility criteria for those two payments are very different. In one circumstance, a person might be better off on one of them and, in another circumstance, better off on another. It is a difficult decision. If I had to make a medical decision, my GP will give me advice so that I can make an informed choice, yet people are coming to the social welfare system and not being given that level of information so that they can make an equivalent informed choice. They are being asked to simply choose a form or choose what they are applying for. There is a lack of helping people. As others said, it is a complex system.

It is worth noting a couple of reference points. Regarding the holistic view, we recently had the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. It was welcome that this is the first time we had such a commission that focused on welfare as well as taxation and talked about the integration of those two systems, which are not fully integrated. In many other countries, they are integrated and that is another overview. It might also be worth looking at the work of Eurofound, the European agency that looks at work and living conditions, which is based in Loughlinstown even though it serves the entire EU. There is a body of expertise there that could be brought to the committee if members so wished.

Another issue to bear in mind in all of this is that the Department of Social Protection, like every other Department, is limited by what the Department of public expenditure will allow. It seems increasingly obvious that the Department of Social Protection is bringing forward what it would like to achieve, such as Government commitment to 34% of average earnings - input was made to Government in the latest budget on that - but the Department for public expenditure is saying, “No.” Because the Department of Social Protection is uniquely about cash payments, the relationship with the Department of public expenditure needs scrutiny. The decision-making criteria for one Department is very different from another. With regard to designing a social welfare system, the Department of Social Protection might well design or present a more robust welfare system but unless the Department of public expenditure is part of that conversation, it is likely to be looking at it from a very different perspective, and that needs to be addressed as well.